If you spend enough time reading about Minolta gear, you will eventually come across a reference to crossed “XX” gear. This is a thing for Minolta collectors—not a major thing, but a thing nonetheless. When Minolta released the Maxxum line of cameras for the North American market, it overlapped the Xs in “Maxxum” as a brand identifier. At the time, Exxon existed, and it had similar overlapping Xs in its name. This led to some legal wrangling, and Minolta quickly relented and removed the overlapping letters. (Unlike what is reported in many places, Exxon did not win a judgment against Minolta. The autofocus patent loss was to Honeywell.) The change from crossed “XX” to regular “XX” took only a few months, so crossed “XX” items are relatively scarce—which is why they attract the attention of Minolta fans.
Once, it was rumored that the earlier “XX” gear was of higher quality. However, this has been debunked. What is true is that the 1985 and early versions of many Minolta lenses are superior, but that has nothing to do with being crossed “XX” or not. These early lines tend to have more metal and sharper glass making them superior. Later lenses,decreased in quality due to cost-cutting measures that Minolta initiated.
I had no intention of deliberately collecting “XX” lenses or other items, so my little collection mainly happened by accident. However, when I am searching for an item and happen to find a crossed “XX” version, I buy it. Here are the lenses released in 1985 with the first Maxxum cameras and many were released as crossed “XX” versions.
- 24mm f/2.8
- 28mm f/2.8
- 50mm f/1.4
- 50mm f/1.7
- 50mm f/2.8 Macro
- 135mm f/2.8
- 300mm f/2.8 Apo
- 28-85mm f/3.5-4.5
- 28-135mm f/4.0-4.5 (Secret handshake)
- 35-70mm f/4
- 35-105mm f/3.5-4.5
- 70-210mm f/4 (Beercan)
Except for the 300mm f2.8, the non-XX 1985 versions are common and readily found. Generally speaking, I would say these are the best Minolta AF lenses aimed at amateurs. (I would add the 100mm f2.8 macro and the 28-105mm non-xi lenses to this “best” grouping as well).
I got caught up in “XX” collecting after buying a set containing a 400si and four lenses, one of which was a 35-105mm “XX” lens. At that point, I was mildly amused at my new find but not inspired to search out more. Then, a 35-70mm “XX” appeared as part of another set, and then it seemed unreasonable not to have as many of that original set of Maxxum lenses as possible. After all, on Dyxum, the 1985 lens versions have the highest ratings. I probably would not have put much more effort into searching had not ShopGoodwill put an“XX” Maxxum 7000 on auction. I got that Maxxum 7000 and two more that popped up on the site—the most expensive one cost 17.00. Of the three cameras, one works completely, one squeaks while focusing, and one has a dead viewfinder LED. With a fully working 7000 in hand, I decided to find XX lenses to fill out my collection.
My current collection consists of:
- 28mm f/2.8
- 50mm f/1.4
- 50mm f/1.7
- 135mm f/2.8
- 28-85mm f/3.5-4.5
- 35-70mm f/4
- 35-105mm f/3.5-4.5
- 70-210mm f/4 (Beercan)
I’m not deliberately looking for more, as I already have a 28-135mm non-XX lens, which I have only used once. So, my unintended collection is essentially complete. Still, it’s nice having great lenses that happen to be historical artifacts as well.
I have a mint early “Crossed XX” 7000 and a likewise mint later 7000. The difference in feel between the two is very evident. The early “Crossed XX” is much more substantial feeling and all controls and function work more smoothly, more precisely and much quieter. The later on has a point and shoot, plasticky feel to it. Its autofocus is louder, the shutter is louder and has a different tone. The mirror is also louder and feels like its movement is less dampened. It’s odd but overall the canera feels “hollow” when used compared to the earlier one which is more solid and fluid-feeling. They are both fine cameras but the earlier one is a cut above. Lens-wise, the same holds true. The earlier crossed XX lenses are tighter and the focus and zoom operations, again, fell like they are dampened and fluid while the later lenses feel like a nylon rack and pinion gear with too much clearance. Functional, but not the same as the early lenses.
Here’s a tip for those of you whose rubberized lens grips have turned white and the camera’s grip surfaces have turned white and sticky … Clean the lens rudder surfaces with mineral spirits and a toothbrush. Brush the aggressively, taking care to not saturate the lens to the point of the mineral spirits seeping down between the lens body snd collars. Wipe and allow to air dry. The oils in the mineral spirits will restore the grip surfaces.
On the body grips, use mineral spirits to clean the surfaces and remove the gum. Final wipe jn one direction to smooth ghe surface and allow to air dry. I masked the rest of the camera off and sprayed a light mist coat of Plasti-Grip Matte Black aerosol spray. I left the parts on the camera and just masked them odd neatly. The resulting finish looks and feels exactly like original. Do not use paint. The hydrolyzing of the deteriorating polymer will bleed right through paint (I tried both enamel and lacquer) and become gummy in a few days. The Plasti-Dip seals off the surface and prevents the solvents from penetrating and
making it gummy.
This is good info. I’ve dealt with bloom and grip issues in a similar manner. I have 3 “XX” and three regular 7000s, and I’ve never compared them. Now, I’ll have to check!
Nerd catnip! 😀 Thanks
You’re welcome! How many do you have?